Talk:Truth in Numbers?/Archive 1

Deletion

Why does this keep getting deleted?--Filll 17:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Filll, good to see you! Same thing for me here too but I just do not know why! Whatever that is, I manage to create it just in time it reaches 1717070707! :) Which is to say in other words, five sevens, two ones, and three zeroes — truly the "Truth in Numbers"! Pole Heinz Tower 17:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look in the log.--P4k 17:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article good enough to be published?

Please rate the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by U5K0 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

In the film box, in the edit space, there are more credits than the ones that appear on the article (such as the ones for "co-producer", "editor" etc - . Can someone who knows formatting take a look at this?

Translating the article

Now that the dispute about the apropriatness of this article has been resolved I think it may be a good idea to translate it into more languages. It has already been translated into slovene (by me) and a french article about the film has existed for some time now.U5K0 (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong namespace

Hi. There's a problem with the article, it's in the project namespace. That's why it says "project page" on the top, instead of "article". Can this be fixed, or will it always be in Wikipedia namespace due to the title? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 20:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been told that this topic isn't ready to be an article yet. Also a project namespace is aparently a good incubator for a future article. I'm not shure when the info here will be considered good enough to be an article. U5K0 20:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Why not? This looks good enough for a real article. In fact, it looks better than some real articles I've seen. Besides, it's linked from the mainspace with the appearence that it's a real article. In fact, an inexperienced reader may identify this as an article. I even thought it was an article until I saw it said "project page". I also thought "Wikipedia:" was part of the movie's title. Could you point out some of the parts it doesn't have yet in order to become a real article? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 00:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically an article like this was deleted in the begining of the year (in the spring). When I found out about the movie and saw there was no article about it I wrote the one that is still on my talk page. From what I understand it was deleted on the ground that the same article had already been deleted half a year before. That one was deleted because it didn't have enough sources and becase Wikipedia "isn't a cristal ball". I'd like it very much if it were to become an article but I'm still sort of a n00b here. U5K0 14:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I donated to it, I don't think it's notable enough to be in the main namespace. It's just another low-budget proposed film. Let's keep it in project namespace for now. Superm401 - Talk 13:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be in the article name space. If its not notable enough for an article, we can't shield it from AfD/notability scrutiny in the Wikipedia space. I've moved it. • Lawrence Cohen 21:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC) I think that if every pokemon can have its own article than this movie should also be able to have at least a project page. U5K0 (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locations section

The lists of Wikipedians, who aren't notable, should probably be removed. • Lawrence Cohen 23:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. They are part of cast. `'Míkka >t 23:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movie articles only list the most important or notable characters. For example, on King Kong. We have almost 100 plus Wikipedia users and other individuals listed. They certainly are not all important or notable parts of the cast. The article needs to match the style of all the other articles on films. • Lawrence Cohen 23:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let's remove the Wikipedians list. --Jedravent (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least the ones who say something meaningful (rather than just mingle) must be mentioned. Anyway, I agree they must be deleted now and re-added later after the final release. Who knows which pieces of the whole filming will be in the final montage. `'Míkka >t 01:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK that sounds reasonable. I would however like to ask anyone who deletes the information in question to also re-add it when the time comes. Otherwise leave a note on my talk page. U5K0 (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, for all of the above reasons. Mention of some significant individuals and/or film locations might be useful, but that's debatable and I won't waste time trying to do so myself. I will not be checking back to see when the time comes for mentioning the "Internet cafe owner" from India. I've also added a "tone" tag to the subsequent section in regards to the lack of 'encyclopedic voice', which seems fairly self explanatory as the first bullet point item begins with "The crew wilds out". - Banyan Tree 06:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story" or "Truth in Numbers? The Wikipedia Story"

The movie is separated with both a : and a ?. Is "Truth in Numbers" a question or a statement. Or is it called "Truth in Numbers? The World According to Wikipedia." What is the movie called? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.229.122.234 (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will this movie ever be released?

It seems odd that we are permitting this article to continue to exist given the vaporware-like nature of the film. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. 131.111.55.13 (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier articles

An article about this film that existed at Truth in Numbers from 2007 to 2009 is available at User:Church of emacs/Truth in Numbers (deleted after this AfD).

Yet another, earlier attempt seems to have been at Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story (deleted in 2007 after this Afd).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These pages have since been merged into this article's main history. -- Cirt (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted

Note, the article has previously been at AfD many times, and deleted more than once. It apparently still hasn't been released, which was the main objection to it in previous AfDs. Is there any reason I shouldn't delete it again? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for G4 on this article and it was declined. In my opinion, it ought to qualify, since the main objections - crystal balling and undue promotion - can only be answered by an actual release of the film, which hasn't happened yet. Moreover, in the absence of a release it has effectively no notability. Having said that - and having been seen to say it - I will not push any further on the matter. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the situation has surely changed significantly compared to the previous AfDs. I wasn't involved in them, but it seems to me that the decisive factor back then was that the film didn't exist yet and the article was merely about a project to create one - see the "vaporware" comments and the justification for the last (December 2009) nomination: "Its nice that someone wants to make a documentary about Wikipedia, there are lots of books about it after all, but this one doesn't look like it is ever going to happen." It has happened now, the film's existence isn't in doubt. We also have more WP:GNG coverage now - I assume that IndieWire is a reasonable reliable source in this field (although it is not entirely independent, considering that its parent company showcased the film), and the film's premiere was reported by Süddeutsche Zeitung, a major German daily, as the opener of its Wikimania coverage ([1] - in German). All in all, G4 definitely doesn't apply.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, every AfD emphasized the point that it had not yet been released, despite claims that it was going to be released imminently. Reviewers insisted there should be no article until the film had actually been released. And the situation as of today? Still claiming that it is going to be released imminently. So, what has changed? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is now October 2010. The article has sourced claims about a release schedule in November 2010. That is no longer WP:CRYSTAL territory in my opinion. Thparkth (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason people wanted to wait for it to be released is because it was unclear if it would ever actually come out. Since then, it has been shown in its entirety at Wikimania and PaleyDocFest and is to be released next month. It definitely exists now, people have seen it, it's verifiable. I suppose release could be delayed again, but we do know now that this is a real completed film. That's the difference between then and now. Reach Out to the Truth 03:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it still hasn't been released, and that's what people have been objecting to all along: Claims it was just about to be released have continually been made, and continually been proven false. A film was shown to a small audience. Maybe it will be released in a month. Maybe not. I still haven't seen anything that has actually changed since the last AfD. Please actually address those issues, or it will have to be deleted again, and go to WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The movie appears to meet the WP:GNG based on the independent coverage in reliable sources already referenced in the article. As such, the notability of the movie does not depend on it being released next month, so an argument along those lines invoking WP:CRYSTAL is probably not useful. Thparkth (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what got it deleted in the past, so rather than claiming it's not "useful", it's actually going to have to be addressed here rather quickly. I'm willing to userfy the article for someone instead of deleting it; then, if and when it's actually released, it can be restored to article space. Does someone want to take ownership? Jayjg ^(talk) 12:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning to skip the whole AFD thing? I'm sure you wouldn't be considering summary deletion, since you know (from taking part in this discussion) that it would be controversial. Thparkth (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The normal pattern for speedies like this is delete, then DRV if people contest. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-read the AFD that you closed as "delete" in December 2009. I believe that you did so correctly. However the main arguments used in that discussion - that the movie was "vaporware", could not be confirmed to exist, had no confirmed title etc, all of which properly invoked WP:CRYSTAL - definitely no longer apply. There is only one forward-looking claim (which is sourced and verifiable) in the article at present, and even if that claim was removed entirely, there would still be a strong argument for notability based on the other sourced, verifiable claims made about things that have already happened - none of which was the case at the previous deletion discussion. In short, there is no way that speedy deletion criteria G4 applies here, and that is what I will argue at WP:DELREV if necessary. On the other hand, I would completely support another WP:AFD to establish what the community feels about the article now in the light of the developments since 2009. Would that be an acceptable way forward for you? Thparkth (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, if you AfD it, and abstain from !voting, then I won't delete or userfy it. I obviously won't take part myself either, since my only concerns here are administrative. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the offer made by way of compromise, but I don't generally take articles to WP:AFD unless I actively seek their deletion. However I wouldn't participate in the AfD if someone else nominated it - I'm not sure that the article is all that notable. Maybe it deserves to be deleted. But not under G4 in my opinion, because things have changed sufficiently that the arguments at the previous AfD are no longer applicable. Thparkth (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I've submitted it to AfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine - thanks for listening to the concerns and agreeing to enable a wider discussion. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the movie hasn't been released at all contradicts the IMDb, which lists it as having been released on October 20 [2]. Rather than deciding this content dispute by a deletion or userfication of the article, I would like to invite you to make the case for your opinion at a new AfD. I understand the frustration about the way that previous versions of this article may have skirted the notability policy from 2007 to 2009, but it has been clearly demonstrated that several important things have changed since then (the films exists now, has had its premiere and according to IMDb its release, additional coverage in reliable sources exists), and that G4 does not apply.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "content dispute" here, since I haven't touched the content. Rather, I'm acting as an administrator, enforcing the result of an AfD discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi, there's a recent thread at foundation-l. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page has since been improved upon [3]. Hopefully we will not again have to go through the silliness of yet another AFD in the future. :P Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title for page

Truth in Numbers? is sufficient. There is no need to have the entire title after the colon in the page title. -- Cirt (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is consistent with other works with long subtitles. Will Beback talk 23:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is consistent? Long or short? -- Cirt (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short. It's not universal, but more common to omit the subtitle especially in longer titles. Will Beback talk 00:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

quote from me

I'm not suggesting that the article needs to be changed, but for those who read talk pages I'll just point out that the quote from me (Sage Ross) in The Register is misleading with respect to my view of the film. Here's the relevant context for the quote, from my blog:

Reactions from Wikipedians were mixed and complicated, although during the screening itself it felt like a very positive reaction. The film gives a lot of focus to some shallow or misleading lines of criticism, and on an intellectual level, it comes off as largely anti-Wikipedia, contrasting the reasonable-sounding arguments of mature critics with the naive optimism of youthful Wikipedians. (For the most part, the critics’ arguments are easily answered, but the counter-arguments are a little more sophisticated than what can be explained well in a documentary aimed at an audience with little Wikipedia background.) Emotionally, though, I felt that Wikipedia–or rather, the Wikipedians–win in a landslide.

Point being, I actually liked the film quite a bit, and think it's on balance quite positive about Wikipedia. Great job on this article, Cirt! --ragesoss (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD history

Please, do not remove the AFD history template from the top of this talk page. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will leave the template there. Cheers, —mc10 (t/c) 01:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA passed

This article was reviewed and promoted to GA quality status. The GA Review is at Talk:Truth in Numbers?/GA1. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can I watch this film?

I do not see it available for purchase, download, rental, or anything. Is this movie real? Harsh Desai 23:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried the official website, listed at the bottom of the article? It has information on screenings and offers multiple ways of purchasing the film in multiple formats. Regards, Skomorokh 21:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested copy edit from Guild of Copy Editors

I've requested a copy edit from Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, hopefully they'll be by some time soon to go through the article.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, many thanks to Lfstevens, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next to do

Bit more copy editing throughout.
Trim amount of quotation usage throughout.
Go through and see about finding external links for cites if possible.
Add archival info for external links where available.
Consult other editors for additional copy editing.
Think about additional stages of review to further along quality improvement process.

Will update more re above as some of this is done. — Cirt (talk) 10:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk header

Let's please keep the {{Talk header}} on this page, thank you.

The {{Talk header}} serves multiple functions including the archives index function, and is superior to the archives box.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It presents a huge amount of text that's completely irrelevant to a dead talk page (3 years and counting since any discussion). Given that this talk page also only has one archive, it's also complete overkill in that area. However I really don't care any more, so knock yourself out. — Scott • talk 12:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to perform an ongoing quality improvement project on this page, having previously successfully brought it to WP:GA status. So the talk header will be helpful throughout. Thank you for your understanding, — Cirt (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]